Keynote address and opening dinner
Friday 30 May 2008, 8.00 pm
SPEAKERS
Dr John Chipman
Director-General and Chief Executive, IISS
Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister, Singapore
The Seventh Shangri-La Dialogue was opened by IISS Director-General and Chief Executive Dr John Chipman, who noted that it was taking place in the Institute’s 50th anniversary year. In its early years, the IISS was preoccupied with the question of how civilised international relations could be conducted in the nuclear age. ‘We helped to measure and analyse the balance of power between East and West, proposed ideas on how that balance of power could be maintained through arms control, influenced governments to take sensible steps towards conflict resolution and sometimes quietly brought the relevant parties together to help them do what they could not do alone,’ Dr Chipman said. The institute had established a reputation for ‘independence, factual authority, useful originality and practical action in the service of good public policy’. From the 1980s, it had extended its member network to nearly 100 countries and had become involved with every continent and concerned with all the key strategic themes. ‘Now, for example, when many of the great geopolitical challenges of the day are thrown up by conflicts ... in areas such as Asia and the Middle East, the IISS is vitally active in these regions, marshalling facts, producing policy research, sustaining the art of strategic thinking and engaging in that special brand of paradiplomacy of which this [Shangri-La] Dialogue is such a prime example.’
The 2008 Dialogue, Dr Chipman said, would bring together the largest number of ministers and countries so far. Its agenda reflected the subjects and themes with which strategic actors in Asia were now involved. These included the commitments and ambitions of major powers in the region; the definition of security in such uncertain times; the growth in regional arms procurement; the acute problem of terrorism; the need for navies to collaborate to secure sea lanes; and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the conference would discuss urgent issues such as the security consequences of competition for energy, the social impact of high energy and food prices, the effects of climate change, and responses to natural disasters.
Finally, the Dialogue would address the changing regional security architecture. ‘If Asia is not quite yet a unified security community, it is certainly a vibrant security marketplace,’ Dr Chipman remarked. ‘Security here is regularly being bought, rented, leveraged, reinsured, merged and acquired through a dizzying array of strategic partnerships, ad hoc cooperative relationships and formal defence alliances, some reflected, others less so, in existing institutional structures.’ The Shangri-La Dialogue, because it included the national-security establishments of all the key states, had a special place within the architecture in helping to intermediate these distinct and emerging defence relationships.
The keynote address was delivered by Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s Prime Minister, who was introduced by Professor François Heisbourg, Chairman of the IISS Council. Lee commented on developments in international security over the preceding year and noted that in Asia, ‘the overall strategic environment remains benign’. The Six-Party Talks with North Korea had achieved some results, and relations between the key powers – China, Japan and India – were stable and constructive. China was playing an increasingly crucial role in both regional and global affairs, and was putting more emphasis on sustainable development, environmental concerns and social equity. Its relations with Japan had improved, and the election of Ma Ying-jeou as Taiwan’s president would bring an improvement in relations between China and Taiwan. India’s weight in regional affairs was continuing to grow, with its maritime reach now extending from the Indian Ocean to the Strait of Malacca and beyond. Regional cooperation had improved, with the signing by Southeast Asian countries of the ASEAN Charter and movement towards the creation of an economic community in that region by 2015. The East Asia Summit was gaining substance.
The US election would take place in the coming year: ‘We in Asia are following the campaign closely because the critical issues of war and peace, of prosperity and scarcity, all hinge on its outcome.’ Lee hoped the winner would ‘uphold America’s commitment to globalisation, free trade and international rules; pursue constructive relations with China and other major powers; actively cultivate America’s vital and diverse interests in the Asia-Pacific, especially in Southeast Asia; remain steadfast in the fight against terrorism; and, therefore, take a long-term approach towards Iraq and Afghanistan’. America’s role was crucial in engaging a rising Asia and integrating it into the global system.
Globalisation, Lee said, was causing concern in the developed world. Income gaps were widening. Job insecurity, immigration and economic restructuring made workers ‘feel helplessly caught up in the process of change, rather than being beneficiaries of a bigger economic pie’. There was a fear that closer interdependence might mean becoming vulnerable to and dependent on foreign powers. ‘Hence the angst and debate about sovereign wealth funds’, Lee said. These concerns were provoking nationalistic and protectionist sentiments around the world. ‘Governments therefore need to address the anxieties of workers, help more people to become winners, and so build a broad consensus supporting globalisation and prosperity, while resisting protectionism and xenophobia.’ Otherwise, frictions and rivalry between countries and regions would be harder to contain.
Asia’s growth would open up a range of opportunities for many countries. ‘It is in the vital interests of the status-quo powers of the developed world to accommodate a rising Asia and to engage the region constructively’, the prime minister said. The reaction of young Chinese to the disruptions to the Olympic torch relay had shown their sense of national pride and passionate desire to mount a successful Olympic Games. The international community needed to understand the strength of these emotions. At the same time, the Chinese people needed to develop ‘a sense of their new place and power in the world, and to learn how to engage the West with measured confidence’.
Among the issues demanding cooperative approaches was food. Not only was the world’s population steadily increasing, but with Asia’s rise, hundreds of millions of people were becoming more affluent and eating more. On the supply side, Lee said that ‘misconceived green policies to subsidise biofuels are encouraging farmers to grow corn for fuel instead of food, and squeeze the supply of food’. In the longer term, climate change would probably reduce the supply of fresh water and arable land. The trend towards tighter supplies and higher prices had serious security implications, potentially causing social upheaval and civil strife in poor countries, and tensions and even conflict between nations. ‘To avert a serious problem, we need a multilateral cooperative effort’, Lee said. Individual countries needed to upgrade farm productivity and infrastructure, and international agencies should promote research and development in agro-technologies to develop higher-yielding and climate-resistant crop varieties.
A second challenge requiring international cooperation was the provision of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Following the recent earthquake in Sichuan province, the Chinese government had responded with a relief effort unprecedented in speed and scale, and this had been matched by a spontaneous outpouring of compassion and support for the Chinese people. There had been extensive international media coverage. ‘This is a China the world has never seen before’, Lee commented, ‘a sympathetic view of a country in transition, confronting enormous problems, but also mustering huge energies and unexpected capabilities, as well as displaying a shared humanity. The Sichuan earthquake showed how much China has changed, and it offered a glimpse of its future: a more open and self-confident nation.’
By contrast, the government of Myanmar had been extremely reluctant to accept international aid following Cyclone Nargis. The frustration of the international community, Lee said, was ‘completely understandable’, but the government’s actions were not surprising. ‘The military leaders surely know that foreign aid will save lives and help to rebuild the devastated areas, but they also fear the political consequences of opening up the disaster zone to international aid teams. This might show up their own incapacity and undermine their credibility and legitimacy.’ Lee said the Myanmar government’s response was ‘regrettable’. Governments must, he remarked, learn to work together on humanitarian assistance and relief efforts. Existing structures such as ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum could be used to facilitate swift responses to such disasters.
Lee concluded by noting that in the face of complex challenges, American leadership continued to be indispensable. Asia would continue to depend critically on its links with the US and other developed countries. At the same time, rising Asian countries would have to shoulder their share of the burden in the international system.
Questions and answers
Dr Chipman noted that the rise of both China and India was now widely seen as inexorable, and that ‘if you speak to Indians and Chinese, they both believe that the future belongs to them’. He asked: ‘Can they both be right?’ Lee responded: ‘I think they will both have great futures, but the future will belong to neither of them. The world is a big place.’ America would continue to play an important role, and so should Europe. ‘Within this framework, the Chinese and the Indians can prosper, and other much smaller countries, including Singapore, can also prosper.’
Major-General Anm Muniruzzaman, President of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies, remarked that international naval exercises conducted recently in the Indian Ocean had aroused concern in China and other countries. Might these be part of efforts to contain China’s rise? Lee did not believe any containment strategy would be attempted, or would succeed. ‘None of the countries in the region wants to take sides between China and an adversary,’ he said. It was strongly in Washington’s interest to develop constructive relations with Beijing, given the mutual interest in trade and investment, as well as in issues such as global warming and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Problems would arise, whether over the exchange rate, the trade deficit, human rights or intellectual property. If the relationship was sound, these could be discussed without the countries being at loggerheads. ‘On that basis, there is room for countries in Asia to be friends with both sides. This is what we earnestly wish to do.’
Robert D. Blackwill, President of BGR International, asked the prime minister what worried him most about the future of Asian security. ‘Is there anything that keeps you awake at night?’ Lee answered that there were many things. ‘Something can go ”bump” elsewhere in the world, such as in the Middle East, in Iran ... Or, for that matter, Israel and Palestine continue to radiate tension all around the world, including to Southeast Asia and East Asia. Something could go ”bump” within the Asian region, such as in North Korea ... There could be a terrorist incident on a massive scale. Such things can never be ruled out.’
If attitudes towards globalisation changed, if America were to become inward-looking and protectionist, rising economies could seek to force their way into the world system, rather than being integrated peacefully into it. This would be a very bad outcome. A Chinese television series called The Rise of Great Powers had shown that great powers of past centuries had run into trouble because ‘they went the route of expansion and assertion’. Lee had discussed with a senior Chinese leader the issues it raised. ‘I said to him, “You say that you are not going to exercise hegemony ever. I believe you, but how do I know it will last?” He said, “We are not going to do it.” I said, “Well you may say you are not going to do it, but what about your grandchildren? How can you speak for your grandchildren?” He said, “Well, I cannot say forever, but I can say that, for the next 50 years, China cannot afford war. We need peace; we need to grow; we need to develop. If there is conflict we are in trouble and my children and grandchildren need to know that.”’ Lee commented that if this was the mindset in China, ‘then there is a good chance that we will not have to take sides. That is the best outcome.’
